Negative Faith

[connermt]

Believers have faith that god exists.
Their faith is not based on facts, but belief (which can exist independent of facts/data/proof) - which is fine - no condemnation here for that.

So can non-believers have 'faith' there is no god?

After all, both groups have the same amount of evidence for their case: belief. That's it.

It seems that faith erases 'knowledge' in the sense of 'knowing' this or that, so it stands to reason one can have faith there is no god and be just as steadfast in said belief than a theist.

Is this possible?

[connermt]

[Replying to post 29 by dianaiad]

...you have brought an issue that you don't care about into a debate forum. What was the purpose?

You are wrong - as usual. I never said I don't care about the TOPIC, but YOUR opinion on it.
Please try to keep up

[otseng]

I think it's a cover when he's rethinking things or lost an arguement.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid making personal assumptions about others.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Danmark]

It's your objection and thus, your issue. I don't much care how you think about a term and how I use it.[/quote]

Moderator Comment
The key to the rule against one-liners,"No unconstructive one-liner posts are allowed in debates (Do not simply say "Ditto" or "I disagree" in a post. Such posts add little value to debates)," is the word 'unconstructive.'
In this instance it's difficult to find much in this dismissive post that amounts to more than "I disagree."
Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 26 by dianaiad]

My objection isn't a religious objection; it's a grammatical and linguistic one...

It's your objection and thus, your issue. I don't much care how you think about a term and how I use it.

That you do not care is perfectly understandable. What is curious, however, is that you have brought an issue that you don't care about into a debate forum. What was the purpose?

The purpose is to discuss the ISSUE as presented, not only YOUR objection to a term that I acknowledge I don't use as you and many other do.
It boils down to this: YOU don't like how I use a term, I don't care of your objection. Now then, if you want to discuss the ISSUE aside from the TERM, let's go. Otherwise, we're done.
To make it clear: I am NOT going to argue the TERM with you.
I am NOT going to argue the TERM with you.
I am NOT going to argue the TERM with you.

[connermt]

What is curious, however, is that you have brought an issue that you don't care about into a debate forum. What was the purpose?

OMG, you've noticed it. I think it's a cover when he's rethinking things or lost an arguement.

I would be happy to discuss it with you as well. Unfortunately, you seem content with personal attacks.
One could call this an unique example of 'negative faith' in that said believer feels the need to attack another personally when they have nothing worthwhile to offer as a means to buffer their faith.
Or something.
Never waste your time trying to explain who you are to people who are committed to misunderstanding you. - Dream Hampton

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 26 by dianaiad]

My objection isn't a religious objection; it's a grammatical and linguistic one...

It's your objection and thus, your issue. I don't much care how you think about a term and how I use it.

That you do not care is perfectly understandable. What is curious, however, is that you have brought an issue that you don't care about into a debate forum. What was the purpose?

The purpose is to discuss the ISSUE as presented, not only YOUR objection to a term that I acknowledge I don't use as you and many other do.
It boils down to this: YOU don't like how I use a term, I don't care of your objection. Now then, if you want to discuss the ISSUE aside from the TERM, let's go. Otherwise, we're done.
To make it clear: I am NOT going to argue the TERM with you.
I am NOT going to argue the TERM with you.
I am NOT going to argue the TERM with you.

You are begging the question. Since 'faith' (negative) is the question at issue, then the definition of 'faith' is most certainly at issue. If debaters disagree about the premise, in this case, 'faith,' then how can the idea of 'negative faith' be debated?

Therefore it's quite logical to ask, in all seriousness; if you don't care what anybody else thinks about this issue, why bring it up for debate?

[connermt]

[Replying to post 26 by dianaiad]

My objection isn't a religious objection; it's a grammatical and linguistic one...

It's your objection and thus, your issue. I don't much care how you think about a term and how I use it.

That you do not care is perfectly understandable. What is curious, however, is that you have brought an issue that you don't care about into a debate forum. What was the purpose?

The purpose is to discuss the ISSUE as presented, not only YOUR objection to a term that I acknowledge I don't use as you and many other do.
It boils down to this: YOU don't like how I use a term, I don't care of your objection. Now then, if you want to discuss the ISSUE aside from the TERM, let's go. Otherwise, we're done.
To make it clear: I am NOT going to argue the TERM with you.
I am NOT going to argue the TERM with you.
I am NOT going to argue the TERM with you.

You are begging the question. Since 'faith' (negative) is the question at issue, then the definition of 'faith' is most certainly at issue. If debaters disagree about the premise, in this case, 'faith,' then how can the idea of 'negative faith' be debated?

Therefore it's quite logical to ask, in all seriousness; if you don't care what anybody else thinks about this issue, why bring it up for debate?

It's quite simple:
Can non-believers have 'faith' there is no god?
If you need clarification, you can look at the first page of the thread.
How else you want to twist it to fit your need to argue is, of course, up to you.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 26 by dianaiad]

My objection isn't a religious objection; it's a grammatical and linguistic one...

It's your objection and thus, your issue. I don't much care how you think about a term and how I use it.

That you do not care is perfectly understandable. What is curious, however, is that you have brought an issue that you don't care about into a debate forum. What was the purpose?

The purpose is to discuss the ISSUE as presented, not only YOUR objection to a term that I acknowledge I don't use as you and many other do.
It boils down to this: YOU don't like how I use a term, I don't care of your objection. Now then, if you want to discuss the ISSUE aside from the TERM, let's go. Otherwise, we're done.
To make it clear: I am NOT going to argue the TERM with you.
I am NOT going to argue the TERM with you.
I am NOT going to argue the TERM with you.

You are begging the question. Since 'faith' (negative) is the question at issue, then the definition of 'faith' is most certainly at issue. If debaters disagree about the premise, in this case, 'faith,' then how can the idea of 'negative faith' be debated?

Therefore it's quite logical to ask, in all seriousness; if you don't care what anybody else thinks about this issue, why bring it up for debate?

It's quite simple:
Can non-believers have 'faith' there is no god?
If you need clarification, you can look at the first page of the thread.
How else you want to twist it to fit your need to argue is, of course, up to you.

I say yes, they certainly can.

Others may say no, they can't, because non-belief in God is based on empirical, logical evidence and is thus not 'faith.'

I say yes because 'faith' and 'trust' are synonyms, and the word 'faith' is used in non religious contexts all the time; therefore using 'faith' as the description of what atheists have when they act on their disbelief in deity is a perfectly accurate thing to do.

However, if my definition of 'faith' is incorrect or irrelevant, then of course atheists can't have faith, can they? Or rather, the debate about whether then can or not is moot, since you have just coshed any ability for another side to contribute to that debate.

It all hinges on the definition, therefore the debate is all about the definition.

After all, I doubt that anybody could argue that it's not possible for atheists to act on their trust that there is no deity, since that's done all the time; the question...your question...was whether they could 'have faith.'

I honestly do not see how one can debate the OP question without dealing with the definition of the word.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 38 by dianaiad]

I honestly do not see how one can debate the OP question without dealing with the definition of the word.

Obviously, yet you just did here:"I say yes, they certainly can. Others may say no, they can't, because non-belief in God is based on empirical, logical evidence and is thus not 'faith.' "
Seems very contradictory to a point where you are confused yet not.
Strange eh?
But I suppose that comes with the territory.